SATISH CHANDRA KAR Vs. KADAMBINI DASI
LAWS(CAL)-1960-6-27
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 08,1960

Satish Chandra Kar Appellant
VERSUS
KADAMBINI DASI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midnapore, on April 12, 1955, affirming those of the learned Munsif of Jhargram, dated October 5, 1953. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the Plaintiff for declaration of title and for khas possession of the land described in schedule Ka of the plaint. She also prayed for declaration of title of schedule Kha land and for confirmation of possession of the same and, in the alternative, for recovery of Khas possession. A claim for mesne profits against the Defendants in respect of the Ga schedule property has also been made. The lands of the disputed interest No. 48 of mouza Ektali was the property of one Dhiranarayan De recorded in the name of his wife, Parbati Dasi.
(2.) Maheswar and Umesh were the sons of Dhiranarayan. Maheswar predeceased his father and so Umesh got all the properties inherited from his father. Umesh's maternal uncle was Titaram Chandra. As he had no land, he could not get married and before marriage Umesh gifted away in favour of his, future aunt 9 29 including the suit land. Thereafter, Titaram possessed the land on behalf of his wife for more than twelve years. After his death, Rajabala was in possession through her bhag-chasis for more than twelve years and, therefore, by inheritance the Plaintiff got the property. The Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sister's son of Umesh while their mother, Defendant No. 3, is the sister of Umesh. Defendant No. 4 is the bhag-chasi of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that these Defendants dispossessed the Plaintiff in Sravan, 1359 B.S. for which this suit has been instituted.
(3.) The Defendants in their written statement denied the Plaintiff's title and have said that the property being a "Joutuk" one belonging to Parbati. on her death, it was inherited by her daughter, the Defendant No. 3, and the deed of gift is the result of some fraudulent mechanisation on the part of Rajabala's father. The sheet anchor of the defence case is that the said Umesh had no right to transfer the property by a deed of gift during her mother's life time in favour of her maternal aunt, Rajabala, and, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to succeed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.